Estimation of patient doses from selected fluoroscopy guided examinations based on Monte Carlo calculations (PCXMC)

Authors

  • Nana N R  Fundamental Physics Laboratory, Postgraduate School for Fundamental and Applied Sciences, University of Douala, P.O. Box 24157, Douala, Cameroon
  • Gyekye K P  School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, University of Ghana, P.O. Box AE 1, Atomic, Accra, Ghana. 3Radiological and Medical Science Research Institute, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, P.O.Box LG80, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
  • Mvoufo F  National Radiation Protection Agency (NRPA). P.O. Box 5331, Akwa, Douala, Cameroon
  • Boadu M  Nuclear Regulatory Authority, P.O. Box AE 50 Atomic Energy, Kwabenya, Accra, Ghana,
  • Ndontchueng M M  University of Maroua, Faculty of Science, P.O.BOX. 814 Maroua, Cameroon.
  • Motapon O  

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST229462

Keywords:

Effective doses, Kerma Area Product, organ doses, screening time and dose optimization technics

Abstract

The aim of this work is to estimate organ and effective dose of patients during some selected fluoroscopy guided examinations using monte carlo based code PCXMC and propose conversion factors for dose estimation at the facility. Screening time, number of radiographs were recorded from the fluoroscopy console and the kerma area product (KAP) from a KAP meter for a total of one hundred and seventy-one (171) patients in two different facilities (A and B). Incident air kerma at reference point, organ and effective doses were estimated with PCXMC software. The mean KAP value was 11.0, 10.4 and 81.0 mGycm2 for hysterosalpingography (HSG), retrograde (RUG) and barium swallow (BaS) respectively. The estimated effective dose was 0.8, 1.1, 22.8 mSv for HSG, RUG and BaS respectively. The mean fluoroscopy screening time was 0.89, 1.26, 2.92 minutes for HSG, RUG and BaS respectively. The mean number of radiographs taken was 4.5, 7.0, 13.0 for HSG, RUG and BaS respectively. Bladder (7.96 mGy), testicles (21.89 mGy) and breast (76,77 mGy) received the highest dose for HSG, RUG and BaS respectively. The recorded mean KAP values of this study for BaS was high than that of HSG and RUG by a factor of 7.4 and 7.8 respectively. This was attributed to high number of radiographs taken and fluoroscopy screening time. The mean KAP of this study was more than that of other studies by a maximum factor of 22.0, 7.8 and 23.5 for HSG, RUG and BaS respectively. The fluoroscopy screening of this study was more than that of other studies by a maximum factor of 3.3, 4.7 and 10.3 for HSG, RUG and BaS respectively. Also, the mean number of radiographs taken for this study was more than that of other studies by a maximum factor of 2.0, 2.6 and 1.7 for HSG, RUG and BaS respectively. It was suggested that there are other contributing factors to patient doses in addition to the screening time and radiographs taken during fluoroscopy procedures. A dose conversion factor from measurable quantities to effective dose estimation has been proposed to aid patient dose optimization. Further studies aiming at reporting patient organ doses in fluoroscopy examination and investigate into other patient dose contributing factors has been recommended to strengthen patient dose optimization.

References

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. “Patient dose optimization in fluoroscopically guided interventional   procedures: Final report of a coordinated research project.” IAEA-TECDOC -164. Vienna. 2010.
  2. ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP  Publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4).
  3. NA/NRC  National Academies/National Research Council.: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR VII, Phase 2 (National Academies Press, Washington) 2006.
  4. G. K. Korir, J. S. Wambani, K. I. Korir, M. Tries, B. Mulama. “Quality management systems in radiology.” South African journal of radiology. Vol. 17, No. 3, 2013. pp 84 – 88. http://10.7196/SAJR.886.
  5. B. Botwe, C. Schandorf, S. Inkoom, A. Faanu. “Status of quality management systems in computed tomography facilities in Ghana.” Radiol Technol. 91 (4) 2020: 324-332.
  6. J. S. Wambani, G. K. Korir GK, M. A. Tries, I. K. Korir, J. M. Sakwa. “Patient radiation exposure during general fluoroscopy examinations.” Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2014. 15(2), 262-270. http://10.1120/jacmp.v15i2.4555.
  7. S. Balder, D. W. Fletcher, H. M. Kunan, D. Miller, D. Ritcher, H. Seiss, T. B. Shope. “Techniques to estimate radiation dose to skin during fluoroscopically guided procedures. Skin Dose Measurements.” AAPM 2002 ;1-10.
  8. P. K. Gyekye, G. Emi-Reynolds, M. Boadu, E. O. Darko, J. Yeboah, S. Inkoom, C. K. Mensah. “cancer incidence risk to patients due to hysterosalpingography.”  J Med Phys;  2012. 37:112-6. http://10.4103/0971-6203.94747.
  9. D. Bor, T. Sancak, T. Toklu, T. Olgar. and S. Ener. “Effects of radiologists’ skill and experience on patient doses in interventional examinations,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim.(2008) 129(1–3), 32–35.
  10. National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association. X‐ray Equipment for interventional procedures with user quality control mode. NEMA XR. 2018.
  11. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment –Part 2–43: particular requirements for the safety of x‐ray equipment for interventional procedures. 2000; IEC report 60601.
  12. NCRP. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements., radiation dose management for fluoroscopicallyguided interventional medical proceduresncrp Report No. 168. 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 400 / Bethesda, MD 20814-3095, 2011.
  13. K. Smans, L. Struelens, M. T. Hoornaert, F. Bleeser, N. Buls, D. Berus, P. Clerinx, F. Malchair, F. Vanhavere and H. Bosmans. “A study of the correlation between dose area product and effective dose in vascular radiology,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. (2008) 130(3), 300–308.
  14. A. Sulieman, K. Theodorou, M. Vlychou, T. Topaltzikis, C. Roundas, I. Fezoulidis, et al. Radiation dose optimisation and risk estimation to patients and staff during hysterosalpingography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008;128:217 26.
  15. UNSCEAR. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2008 Report to General Assembly. New York: UNSECAR; 2010.
  16. NCRP. “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States.” NCRP Report 160. Bethesda, Md, USA: The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009
  17. M. Yousef, J. Y. Tambul, A. Sulieman. “Radiation dose measurements during hysterosalpingography.” Sudan Med Monit 2014;9:15-8.
  18. Y. Morishima, K. Chida, Y. Inaba, O. Ito,  “Patient Exposure Dose in a Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study.” Ann Clin Case Rep. 2021; 6: 1922. ISSN: 2474-1655
  19. A. Vodovatov, V. Golikov, I. Kamyshanskaja, V. Cheremysin, K. Yanina, C. Bernhardsson. Medical Physics in the Baltic States 13 (2017) 137-141
  20. M. Tapiovaara, T. Siiskonen. PCXMC 2.0. User's Guide. STUK-TR 7. Helsinki 2008. 19 pp. + apps. 5 pp.    
  21. P. K. Gyekye, C. Schandorf, M. Boadu, J. Yeboah, J. K. Amoako. “Patient dose  assessment due to fluoroscopic exposure for some selected fluoroscopic procedures in Ghana.” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2009. 130(3):203-208. http://10.1093/rpd/ncp172
  22. E. Gyasi, C. Schandorf, M. Boadu, P. K. Gyekye, J. Yeboah. “Patient organ dose estimation due to some selected fluoroscopy procedures using kerma area product meter.” Journal of Applied Physical Science International 2016. 6(2): 74-79.
  23. H. M. Kim, K. H. Choi, T. W. Kim. “Patient radiation dose during videofluoroscopic swallowing studies according to underlying characteristics.” Dysphagia 2013 ; 28(2): 153 – 8.
  24. J. Otoo, M. Boadu, E. Sosu, S. Inkoom, "Patient Radiation Dose Assessment during Fluoroscopic Procedures: A Survey to Propose Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Selected Facilities", International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology (IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 05-11, July and August 2020. Doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST207378
  25. D. Hart, M. C. Hillier, B. F. Wall. “National reference doses for common    radiographic, fluoroscopic and dental X-ray examinations in UK.” Br. J. Radiol. 2009. 82:1-12. http://10.1259/bjr/12568539
  26. D. Hart, M. C. Hillier, P. C. Shrimpton. Doses to patients from ;/radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK–2010 review. 2012 HPA-CRCE-034. Retreived from http://www.hpa.org.ukiPublications/Radiation/CRCEScientificAnd-Technical ReportSeries/HP AC RCE034.
  27. J. Achuka, M. A. Aweda, M. R. Usikalu, C. A. Aborisade. “Assessment of patient radiation dose during hysterosalpingography: a pilot study of southwest Nigeria.” J Biomed Phys Eng 2020.

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

Downloads

Published

2022-08-30

Issue

Volume 9, Issue 4, July-August-2022

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) IJSRST

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

[1]
Nana N R, Gyekye K P, Mvoufo F, Boadu M, Ndontchueng M M, Motapon O "Estimation of patient doses from selected fluoroscopy guided examinations based on Monte Carlo calculations (PCXMC)" International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011,Volume 9, Issue 4, pp.399-407, July-August-2022. Available at doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST229462